Dismissed

Daud Akhtar Ali Alias Daud Ali Khan and Another v. The State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC12 Sept 2012A.B.A./2457/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order deals with a plea for anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court refused the prayer, holding that sufficient material had come on record during investigation, including supervision notes and the petitioner's involvement in a prior similar case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Daud Akhtar Ali Alias Daud Ali Khan and Another Vs The… — Money Laundering | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No 2457 of 2012

¶2

Daud Akhtar Ali @ Daud Ali Khan 2. Sarwar Ali @ Asraf Ali .... .... Petitioners

¶3

Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opp. Party ----CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

¶4

For the Petitioners : M/s. Amit Kumar Das & C. Mukherjee, Advocates

¶5

For the State : A.P.P.

¶6

----C.A.V. ON 01.09.2012 PRONOUNCED ON 12/09/2012

¶7

----- Jaya Roy,J Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶8

Petitioners are accused in a case registered under Sections 406/420/417/34/120B of the I.P.C.

¶9

The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Sunita Kumari Mahto filed a complaint case in the Court of S.D.J.M. Porahat at Chaibasa bearing C/1 case No. 28/2007 alleging therein that she is a para teacher in village Makranda, Tola Rimidih upgraded Prathamik Vidyalaya and for construction of the School building Rs.4,27,872/- was sanctioned from Jharkhand Zila Pariyojna, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa in favour of Gram Siksha Samity, Rimidih. Further case of the complainant is that two persons namely Daud Akhtar Ali @ Daud Ali Khan and Sarwar Ali @ Ashraf Ali (both the petitioners) came to the complainant and introduced themselves as Contractor. They further told her that they will make construction of the School building properly. After taking permission, they started the construction work and to some extent their work was satisfactory. Thereafter, they demanded a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant for purchasing the materials for construction. The complainant after taking permission from Secretary of the School Committee, the complainant and the said Secretary have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from S.B.I., Jeraikella and

¶10

2 A.B.A. No 2457 of 2012

¶11

handed over the same to the petitioners for the construction work of the School building. But after taking the said amount, the petitioners fled away and did not complete the construction work. On the basis of the complaint petition, the present case was registered i.e. Jaraikella P.S. Case No. 03 of 2009 (G.R. Case No. 263 of 2009) against both the petitioners.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that all the allegations made against them are false and fabricated. The complainant herself had misappropriated the fund sanctioned by the Government and instituted the false case against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the State has filed counter affidavit in this case and submitted that the sufficient materials against the petitioners have come in the investigation. He has further submitted that in the supervision note it has come that the petitioner's business is to get the contract and thereafter devour the money and the petitioner no.1 is also involved in another criminal case of similar nature. It also submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted in this case against both the petitioner under Sections 406/417/420/34 I.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as sufficient materials have come against the petitioners in the investigation furthermore, the petitioner no. 1 involved in another criminal case of similar nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

¶14

(Jaya Roy, J.)

¶15

Anit

Daud Akhtar Ali Alias Daud Ali Khan and Another v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Daud Akhtar Ali Alias Daud Ali Khan and Another v. The State Of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ganesh Ghosh Alias Khugli Ganesh Vs State Of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

James Gegory Indwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Saiyad Kamrullah and Others Vs State Of Jharkhand And Another

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ghulam Ghlam Haggani Khan And

What is this about?

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Prakash Oraon Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Ganesh Ghosh Alias Khugli Ganesh Vs State Of Jharkhand

Dilip Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

James Gegory Indwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Saiyad Kamrullah and Others Vs State Of Jharkhand And Another

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ghulam  Ghlam Haggani Khan And

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Ghulam Ghlam Haggani Khan And